They were older, better established, and resisted radical change.
They felt that rebellion against the Crown—the legitimate government—was morally wrong.
They were alienated when the Patriots resorted to violence, such as burning houses and tarring and feathering.
They wanted to take a middle-of-the road position and were angry when forced by the Patriots to declare their opposition.
They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain (often with business and family links).
They were procrastinators who realized that independence was bound to come someday, but wanted to postpone the moment.
They were cautious and afraid that chaos and mob rule would result.
Some were pessimists who lacked the confidence in the future displayed by the Patriots. Others recalled the dreadful experiences of many Jacobite rebels after the failure of the last Jacobite rebellion as recently as 1745 who often lost their lands when the Hanoverian government won.

Other reasons:

They felt a need for order and believed that Parliament was the legitimate authority.
In New York, powerful families had assembled colony-wide coalitions of supporters, Men long associated with the DeLancey faction went along when its leadership decided to support the crown
They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender such as the British Crown and Parliament.
They had been promised freedom from slavery by the British.
They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial in terms of commerce and their business operations.

Who does that sound like — of the Americans around today? You?

In the American Revolution, would you have been a Loyalist?

To be honest, yes. My current political choices show that's the kind of person I am.

I want to say no, but I admit it's inconsistent with most of what I do politically these days.

No, and my current political behavior supports this assertion.

Yes, but with respect to current issues, I'm much more daring and radical.

If you're planning to watch the 1972 movie "1776" this Independence Day, might I recommend the Director's Cut. Of course, It restores the originally deleted musical number "Cool Considerate Men," but what are you going to do about it.

Growing up in Canada, the story was a little different. We called them "United Empire Loyalists", and prominent Ontario families can trace (or will claim to be able to trace) their lineage back to UELs, like Americans want to be able to claim an ancestor on the Mayflower. The UELs provided the English-speaking population that made Upper Canada (i.e. Ontario - as distinct from Lower Canada (i.e. Quebec)) viable - without that bit shot of English-speaking immigration, Quebec would have had a much more dominating role in Canada's development. So in a sense, the American Revolution created two countries.

I've realized for a long time that I would have been a loyalist. Hell we could have had worse governors. At least it wasn't Spain!

How awful it must have been to choose and face recriminations and retribution later. These situations always get ugly. Do we even know the extent of the revenge taken on loyalists? Or has it been buried by feelgood patriotic histories?

Hillary is the choice of small c conservatives today, people who are either already at the top or believe they are advantaged by the current system and don't perceive much upside to the risk and volatility represented by an unpredictable Trump. A lot of Trump supporters are willing to accept the risk represented by Trump because, like the founders, they are motivated by their ideals about individual liberty and the rule of law and hope he will work for those ideals and not against them. They know Hillary will work against those ideals.

The last option is somewhat loaded, purposely I assume, in that it does not allow for the possibility that it is not the person who has changed, but the issues. All one has to do is to read the airing of grievances in the Declaration of Independence to make a good argument that the current Federal Government is significantly more tyrannical than George III. It is quite reasonable and consistent to have objected to the original revolution and be in support of one now.

Over the years my hair color, marital status, economic class, religion, and ethnicity have changed. At various points I could see myself being either a loyalist or a rebel, or, more likely, seeking some haven where redcoats and rebels weren't shooting at each other and I would not have to choose.......I don't have a great many constant, unchanging moral principles. I'm opposed to cannibalism unless you're really, really hungry and, even then, I wouldn't dine on close relatives. Most other things are negotiable.

Interesting. I like to think after all that The crown had done, I would have chosen The devil you don't know instead of The devil you do.

The Republicans, which typically are tossed into the conservative, and thus loyalist, box had as their their final front runners Cruz and Trump. I think Cruz, although despised by current DC types, could be placed in the Loyalist box; and Trump goes in the perceived revolution! box. Republican voters chose the revolution!

OTOH, Democrats had Hillary and Bernie. Does anyone doubt Hillary is the status-conservative-quo and Bernie is the revolution! ? And look, the Dems went status-conservative-quo. What happened to progress! ?

I think that most of us have always assumed. That we would have been on the side of the rebels, and not the loyalists, because that is who won. Kinda like Cowboys and Indians, Americans versus Krauts or Japs, or later Ruskies or Vietnamese. I know that my mother's direct paternal line included a captain in the Continetal Army (in her DAR directory, she was one of the few whose maiden name matched that of the ancestor claimed for membership).

For a long time though, I believed that, as a conservative, I would have probably stayed with the loyalists. But I have swapped again. If there is going to be a revolution in this country, I think it will be from the right, and not the left. That is because much of the unrest on the left is just jockeying for getting a payoff. Or, in the case of protests, is the side whose protesters, seemingly more often than not, are getting paid to protest. The left today has the very rich, the government workers, and their cronies and the rest of the .1% buying the loyalty of the poor with money taken from the middle class. Today, much of the left has too much to lose to burn down the system. Which may be a long way of saying that I would probably have picked the rebels today, if given that choice, because I believe that the order needs to be changed for a better world. This is despite maybe falling on the opposite side in the quasi-quiz Ann quoted above.

I don't think that Ted Cruz would have been a loyalist. JEB Bush, Mitt Rmney, etc, sure. I see him more as a Patrick Henry type maybe. Ultimately making strange bedfellows with Bernie and Trump against the loyalists led by Hillary and Obama.

"Yale historian Leonard Woods Larabee has identified eight characteristics of the Loyalists that made them essentially conservative and loyal to the king and Britain...."

In 1776, George Washington was 44. John Adams was 41. Thomas Jefferson was 33. James Madison was 25.

The war started with the damn Yankees causing troubles up around Boston. Drinking! And John Adams was a defense attorney so probably a pretty liberal guy. His wife thought slavery was bad.

Washington was maybe the wealthiest guy in Virginia. Everybody knew Jefferson was a hothead. Anyway, after some shoot 'em ups, apparently they had guns back then, and a sort of irritation with taxation without representation, most people were like, "Be cool, be cool." I can see Althouse blogging with her damn printing press, Cruel Neutrality, reminding people about peace and hippie love. But also women had to give birth without any anesthesia. Unless you count whiskey as an anesthesia. Also they all knew how to shoot.

Anyway, the Yankees started it. But Ben Franklin, who was 70 and should know better, suggested to Adams that he make some friends in Virginia. And that's when he found out that Thomas Jefferson hated the damn British. "Put them all in the sea," said Tommy. Who was a hothead. Did not like the crown at all. You know when the French went all atheist crazy and started hating on Christianity and decapitating everybody and renaming all the churches "temples of reason" and basically did insane leftist shit, and everybody and his mother was on the side of the crown? Jefferson was like, "Yay France! Kill 'em!" So he was a hothead. Everybody knew that.

But George Washington was the richest guy in Virginia! He was conservative. That is what was so fucked up about George. He had so much to lose. All his land, and his property, and his head. When George married an older woman who wasn't even a virgin and she had 17,000 acres of land, everybody was like, "You married her for her money," And normally if you were a hothead, you would declare a duel and start shooting people in the street for insulting your wife like that. George Washington would say shit like, "You are wrong, sir." He was like Mr. High Road. So when John Adams, who was supposed to be a big liberal, wanted people to bow to him ("What's wrong with bowing? I like bowing. Call me Your Highness!), George was like, "You are wrong, sir." He kind of impressed people, George Washington. Anyway, it was a radical conservative revolution, which made no damn sense. But that's what it was.

I've always thought of myself as an 18th century liberal whose principles tend to line up more with current conservative thought than what passes as liberalism today. And will I prefer the rule of law, I can't stand its abuse against liberty. So no, despite my age, my conservatism and status as a late adopter, I'd probably follow the path of my kin who were on the rebel side of every uprising since before the War of the Roses.

Everyone wants to be a rebel when they feel they don't have a foothold in the decision making, however some people are irrational and shouldn't be entrusted with such responsibilities. The Rebellion of the Crazies, when the inmates have taken over the asylum, that's what a New Trumpian America would resemble. Those who currently see themselves as the heroic daring rebel character, wanting to burn down our current form of government, aren't rational enough to make any positive changes to something the real heroic rebels fought and died for so many years ago.

Blogger Unknown said...Everyone wants to be a rebel when they feel they don't have a foothold in the decision making, however some people are irrational and shouldn't be entrusted with such responsibilities. The Rebellion of the Crazies, when the inmates have taken over the asylum, that's what a New Trumpian America would resemble. Those who currently see themselves as the heroic daring rebel character, wanting to burn down our current form of government, aren't rational enough to make any positive changes to something the real heroic rebels fought and died for so many years ago.

7/4/16, 9:44 AM"

The only Crazies today are the ones who think it's a good idea to elect a grifter, criminal and traitor as President. What is the color of the sky in your planet?Interesting tidbit: the Brits managed to run their Empire for the most part on ten percent of their GDP. We should be so lucky if the federal government alone could be reduced to ten percent of GDP.

"Blogger chickelit said...And George distilled his own whiskey.

George preferred applejack, the real American spirit. There is but one producer, Laird's, which still makes it.

7/4/16, 9:34 AM"

Fun fact: for a time George Washington was the largest distiller in the country.

In Freedom we're born and in Freedom we'll live.Our purses are ready. Steady, friends, steady;Not as slaves, but as Freemen our money we'll give.

Our worthy forefathers, let's give them a cheer,To climates unknown did courageously steer;Thro' oceans to deserts for Freedom they came,And dying, bequeath'd us their freedom and fame.

In Freedom we're born and in Freedom we'll live.Our purses are ready. Steady, friends, steady;Not as slaves, but as Freemen our money we'll give.

Dickinson refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. His mom was a Quaker and was always rocking his crib with stuff about peace and love. And then he married a Quaker just like his mom. So she was always whispering peace and love in his ear while he slept at night. "If I had such a mother and such a wife," said John Adams, "I believe I should have shot myself." But that was his way of flirting with Abigail. Don't listen to John Adams. He and his damn drunk cousin started the whole thing.

Anyway, Dickinson drafted the Articles of Confederation, so he was kind of a bigwig. United all the colonies, sort of. And he refused to sign the Declaration of Independence! Which pretty much means you get a college and a few towns named after you but nobody's going to put you on the money. He had some reasonable objections to all that highfaluting stuff the hothead wrote.

(1) Why sign and publish the Declaration of Independence when reconciliation with London might still be possible?

(2) Weren’t there friends back in England whom we did not want to alienate?

(3) Are Americans in 13 disparate colonies united enough on key issues to wage a war and form a new government?

(4) Does anybody think that the Continental army and navy are prepared to duke it out with the most powerful nation on earth? Throughout the autumn of 1776, Washington’s army was losing battles, and the number of men under his command dropped from 19,000 to 5,000. The military prognosis could not be more bleak.

(5) Given the bleak military picture in the autumn of 1776, can Americans assume that France will come to the new republic’s assistance?

(6) Will Americans have the perseverance to prosecute a terrible war to the end?

So he would not sign. When Dickinson died, the President of the United States, not so much a hothead anymore, wrote...

A more estimable man, or truer patriot, could not have left us...Among the first of the advocates for the rights of his country when assailed by Great Britain, he continued to the last the orthodox advocate of the true principles of our new government, and his name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the Revolution.”

I'm confused. It seems that today's Tories are the progressive liberals who argue for the status quo--more big government, more big government programs,more identity politics and higher taxes. On the other hand, the radicals are those who want to throw out the liberals along with their big government and big government entitlement programs.

Not enough choices in your poll. Most people are Loyalists until what they are loyal to becomes insufferable. That point will be different for different people. And the Am Rev leaders believed they were conservatives defending the "rights of Englishmen" against the radical tyranny of George III and Lord North (a view with wide support in England.) I can see Obama as Lord North, but where are our Washington's and Franklin's?

Blogger Unknown said.... . . Those who currently see themselves as the heroic daring rebel character, wanting to burn down our current form of government, aren't rational enough to make any positive changes to something the real heroic rebels fought and died for so many years ago.A description of Sanders supporters.The status quo presidential candidate this year is Hillary.

Terry, you might be right, but Trumpism is worst of the two options presented to us. What Trump offers makes me choose status quo this time around. Who knows what will be presented to us at some future date that will be a far better choice to change the status quo.

Most of my American ancestors were here during the Revolution. Some were Tories [Loyalists] but most were Whigs [Patriots]. The Patriots had the novel and exciting concept of Liberty that was able to stir the hearts and minds of the colonists. I would have been stirred by the concept, as well. And still am.

The two major family lines of my mother's family fought against the British even though they were well-to-do landowners and business people. The patriarch of my father's family line left the Richmond, Virginia area, where he had been harassed as a Loyalist, for his property on the frontier of Virginia (present-day Kentucky). There, the family sought refuge at one of the frontier forts, which ironically was captured by the British and their Indian allies. The surviving captives were then force-marched to Detroit and thereafter to Montreal where they were held until 1783. I think by then they were probably no longer Loyalists.

Do revolutionaries remain revolutionaries against the establishment they create? Does Fidel Castro, for example, try to have a revolution against his own communism? If you are the revolution and you achieve your aims you become the establishment. And therefore if you are not at war with your own creation you'd become a conservative. As in you want to conserve those gains.

And then Jefferson indicts the king for the slave-trade and denounces slavery in no uncertain terms.

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain...he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce...determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold...and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Older and better established: yes. But I've advocatedradical changes, or so I surmise that's how otherssee me.

I don't think rebellion against an unjust and exploitativegovernment is wrong.

I would have been alienated by burning houses and tarringand feathering of political opponents.

Some of my positions are middle-of-the-road, others aren't.But that was the character American Revolution compared to other revolutions.

Whether I'd had a long-standing sentimental attachment toBritain would've depended on my family's background. Ifthey'd been part of the elite in England before emigrating,there might have been an attachment. But that was a tinyportion of the colonist population. And I'm not for certainbut I think my actual ancestors were alienated from England.

I am a procrastinator but I don't believe this is relevantin the way being proposed here.

Fear of chaos and mob rule would have been entirely dependenton my attitude towards my fellow Americans at the time. Itseems relevant to point out that the density of populationin America back then was low. Even the biggest cities weren'tthat big. Perhaps the question should be asked if one fearschaos and mob rule from a small town of people whom you mostlyknow.

I'd be aware that being on the losing side presented dramaticrisks.

To most Americans at the time, Parliament felt like an alien,illegitimate and exploitative authority.

"In New York, powerful families had assembled colony-widecoalitions of supporters, Men long associated with the DeLanceyfaction went along when its leadership decided to supportthe crown." -- I've never been politically correct.

"They felt themselves to be weak or threatened within Americansociety and in need of an outside defender such as the BritishCrown and Parliament." -- Who were these people? I've asuspicion this is a hypothetical group that didn't exist.

"They had been promised freedom from slavery by the British."-- There is airbrushing of the past implicit in such a suggestion.Slaves were only promised freedom by the British after theRevolutionary War was well along. And a cynic would have notedthat indentured servitude was legal everywhere in the British Empireincluding Britain and the Canadian colonies and would have been awarethat this was how the majority of the white population had gottento America in the first place and that it was the descendants ofthe former indentured servants that were probably the bedrock ofsupport for the American Revolution. So this British tactic would have been seen as insincere, not to mention ironic, by many Americans.Of course it was aimed at black slaves (indentured servants).

"They felt that being a part of the British Empire was crucial interms of commerce and their business operations." -- Well I thinkmany businessman saw the taxes of the British Empire as a barrierto their success and may have seen independence as an economicopportunity. Of course there would be some that disagreed.

Adding it up I think this means I would have supported independence,and I think my ancestors actually did.

John Dickinson rocks. Even though he refused to sign the Declaration, he joined the Pennsylvania militia. After he got bounced out of that role, presumably for political reasons, he ended up joining a Delaware militia company as a private.

He was also one of the first of the slave-holding Founding Fathers to actually free his slaves, rather than just talk about it.

My direct 5th (?) great grandfather was a private in Burgoyne's army. None of the above have anything to do with why he joined up with the British. He was a poor subsistence farmer near Albany, NY. Essentially a serf, because he had to give part of his grip to the Livingston family which owned the land and rented it to him. When Burgoyne came along, some soldiers came to his farm (and others on other farms) and said "You are going to be in our army." And so it was.

My grandfather was captured in the Battle of Saratoga. He was paroled for the rest of the war. When the war ended he was given two options. Remain, and be tried for treason. Or leave the United States. He took his family to Canada where the British were making land available to "Loyalists." About 100 years later one of his descendants came back to the United States.

As usual in war, the poor and weak were not making choices. The choices were made for them by others.

Interesting that they were going to shove Hamilton off the $10 bill until the rapping play came out. I have not seen the rapping play. Apparently Obama and Hillary are both big fans of the rapping play. But Hamilton is from Saint Croix so I'm not going to say shit about that! Although I'm still a Jefferson man. Anyway, here is the Hamilton rap.

For a more conservative, less musical version of why Hamilton and Washington are cool, see this.

"The Massachusetts Bay Puritans wanted to defend their smuggling wealth, and like today's drug Cartels, they would violently fight to keep it."

They smuggled sugar because it was illegal for the colonies to make their own rum. Sugar from Barbados went to England where it became spirits and then it was sent to the colonies with a huge mark up and taxes included.

Unknown said...Terry, you might be right, but Trumpism is worst of the two options presented to us. What Trump offers makes me choose status quo this time around. Who knows what will be presented to us at some future date that will be a far better choice to change the status quo.

7/4/16, 10:41 AM"

Trump offers me a choice between buffoonery and treason and corruption. I'll take buffoonery over treason and corruption. What's your excuse to favor treason and corruption?

John Dickinson rocks. Even though he refused to sign the Declaration, he joined the Pennsylvania militia. After he got bounced out of that role, presumably for political reasons, he ended up joining a Delaware militia company as a private.

He was also one of the first of the slave-holding Founding Fathers to actually free his slaves, rather than just talk about it.

7/4/16, 11:37 AM"

He was more than a bit muddled-headed. Did he really believe The Crown would embrace them as loyal subjects after warring against the Crown?

"The Massachusetts Bay Puritans wanted to defend their smuggling wealth, and like today's drug Cartels, they would violently fight to keep it."

They smuggled sugar because it was illegal for the colonies to make their own rum. Sugar from Barbados went to England where it became spirits and then it was sent to the colonies with a huge mark up and taxes included.

7/4/16, 12:23 PM"

This is a large factor in turning America from a primarily rum drinking country into a corn whiskey drinking country.

"Blogger Rhythm and Balls said...If you call yourself a "conservative," then yes, you probably would have been.

Happy July 4th, Monarchists!"

If you hate the the Tea Party, then yes, you probably would have been.If you think the Founders put into place an oppressive form of government, then yes, you probably would have been.If you love centralized government, then yes,you probably would have been.If you do not believe in religious liberty, then yes, you probably would have been.If you hate the Bill of Rights, then yes, you probably would have been.If you like the idea of a governing class, then yes, you probably would have been.If you think some Americans should have different rights than other Americans, then yes, you probably would have been.If you think of Americans as subjects rather than citizens, then you probably would have been.

If liberals have a problem with celebrating July Fourth, they should instead celebrate March Fourth, the date of the inauguration of our first progressive president, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson resegregated DC and the federal government, and gave Birth of a Nation a White House screening. Boy-howdy, the White House would never be as white again!

If you hate the the Tea Party, then yes, you probably would have been.If you think the Founders put into place an oppressive form of government, then yes, you probably would have been.If you love centralized government, then yes,you probably would have been.If you do not believe in religious liberty, then yes, you probably would have been.If you hate the Bill of Rights, then yes, you probably would have been.If you like the idea of a governing class, then yes, you probably would have been.If you think some Americans should have different rights than other Americans, then yes, you probably would have been.If you think of Americans as subjects rather than citizens, then you probably would have been.

Terry and his fellow loyalist/conservatives. 240 years late to a party that they now have the dubious luxury of claiming they were all for when it started. At least when it comes to easily misappropriated symbols. How difficult it is to "legitimize" your ninny cause by dressing in period clothes, complete with tricorn hat. That's how I know how real the local Ben Franklin impersonator is. It's all about dressing the part. Such deep people, you monarchists are. Hey, isn't that what kings do, come to think of it? Clothes really do make the man, they say!

I'm so glad to know that Terry has prevented the wealthy from becoming their own "governing class," with different rights from everyone else.

I'm so glad to know that better access to the government by Terry's wealthier betters aren't "different rights."

He makes himself a subject to the wealthy ruling class and thinks that makes him more like a citizen. Wealth is certainly nothing like royalty in America, or anything. You don't get better favors from government with it, or anything like that.

This isn't your O.R., Nurse Michael KKCratchet. If you can't focus and concentrate on the garbage that comes out of your own mouth, then just admit that you don't have anything to contribute - like when you thought about presidential security being something like India's security. Your daughters already know how poor a contributor you are. Go spend the holiday with them, if they care to have you around, you careerist bum.

I have been reading letters from my great, great uncle to his wife during the Civil War.

July 8 1862Dear WifeYours of Jun 23rd I received on the fourth of July or the evening of the third. I wrote you on the third. I don’t know wheather before or after I received yours. It was some time since I had heard from you and of coarse I was glad to hear that all was well at home, I am well as ever I was and hope to remain so. I don’t get time to write ou as often as I usto and I think you don’t get all I do write for you don’t speak of them all. The fourth of July was the lonelyist one I ever passed I wrote you I think that the regt was a Holy Springs , the sick was left behind, I was not sick but I had to stay the Quartermaster went himself. They took nothing with them but five days rations and blankets and three teams the rations run out on Friday.

It goes on. The next July 4, 1863, he was dead after being wounded at Vicksburg on May 22.

The cost of freedom. They were written in script and the spelling may be the transcription.

"I'm confused. It seems that today's Tories are the progressive liberals who argue for the status quo--more big government, more big government programs,more identity politics and higher taxes. On the other hand, the radicals are those who want to throw out the liberals along with their big government and big government entitlement programs."

I wonder about who can do without whom. These modern polarized states of America are distinctly sorted by not just class and race and urban/rural residence, but by professions, avocations, trades, talents. Being a man of experience across many cultural bubbles, I can say that all - all, without significant exceptions - of the "survival" industries and physical systems are run, from management to labor, by persons of the "conservative" polarization. This really is a United States of Ants and Grasshoppers.

I just got back from my local Independence Day parade here on the Big Island.They had some crazy groups. A bunch of Native Americans went by in their kit, dancing up a storm. "Hey!" I said "What nation you with?""Cherokee Nation!""Well you gotta a lot of fucking nerve dancing in an American parade!""Fuck you, cowboy!""Your goddam lucky I left my pistol at home, Cochise!"Lot of American history in that exchange. I hope the kids were paying attention.

"Goldwater Girl" Hilary is also, and this is no accident, the designated figurehead of the bureaucracy, the Democrats also being the party of the government structure, of its personnel, and of its social class.Goldman Sachs and etc. depend on this bureaucracy, with its byzantine systems of rules and backdoor influence, for their prosperity. They are the party of the palace. Against them are the peasantry, the petit bourgeois, and the middle bourgeois.Goldwater himself was of the middle bourgeois, which was always the core of the Republican party. The small and medium businesses, the innovative small technology outfits, the entrepreneurs, the Hewletts and Packards, the machine shops and home builders. There is a great hate in this "middle" against the princes in the palace.

"Clinton writes that she began to have doubts about Goldwater’s politics even before she left high school, when a teacher forced her to play President Johnson during a mock presidential debate in order to "learn about issues from the other side" (page 24). Later, as a junior at Wellesley College, she writes, "I had gone from being a Goldwater Girl to supporting the anti-war campaign of Eugene McCarthy," driving to New Hampshire on weekends to stuff envelopes and walk precincts (pages 32-33). Even so, she also worked as a Washington, D.C., intern for Gerald Ford, who was then the Republican leader of the House, and she attended the 1968 Republican convention to work for New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s unsuccessful effort to get the GOP presidential nomination (pages 34-35).At Yale Law School, however, she completed her transformation from Goldwater Republican to liberal Democrat. At Yale, she met Marian Wright Edelman and helped in her investigations of the Nixon administration. She also met Bill Clinton, and in 1972 joined him in Austin, Texas, where they both worked for George McGovern’s campaign. There, she writes, "I quickly made some of the best friends I’ve ever had" (page 58)."http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

Hillary was born in October of '47, so she would have been too young to vote for Goldwater. She was working in McCarthy's campaign in '68, so the woman Cook describes as a 'Goldwater girl' has, as far as I can tell, never voted for a Republican for president.

Someone please explain this Goldwater Girl babble. It's her own self-serving story, put out there to show two facets:(1) that she really is a Goldwater Republican at her core (this is supposed to appeal to conservatives); or (2) that she started out badly as a teen but had her Damascene moment and saw the light (this is supposed to appeal to liberals). I find the whole shtick self-serving. There is nothing, NOTHING, in her political past which suggests that this woman could do anything bipartisan. Contrast that with Donald Trump who has played both sides.

I'm pretty sure I would have been a loyalist, but most likely I would have been a pretty quiet one. Once I saw that the Revolution was going to happen whether I approved or not, I'd have dropped my opposition since it would be pointless.

The great moral issue of the time was slavery. Compared to that, taxation without representation was a minor injustice. And there is no doubt that when it came to slavery, England was on the side of the angels. British courts effectively abolished slavery within England itself in 1772. The colonists had to be aware of this. In 1833, the Brits abolished slavery throughout the British Empire, which would have meant the end of slavery in the colonies if they were still colonies then. But even in 1776, it was pretty clear that slavery's days in the British Empire were numbered.

If the French Revolution had happened first, the American one might not have happened at all. Imagine the impact Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France would have had on people like Washington and Madison as they were contemplating rebelling against England. They might well have reconsidered.

I suspect she only "switched" due to her sympathy for her mom and the sake of becoming a hard-core 2nd wave asexual feminist.

She's a damn bigger warmongerer than any Democrat I know. Republicans are all about that "strength" thing. As they are about all that materialism and crony capitalism (and fracking!) she's well known for!

Unlike Trump, there is nothing about Hillary's past or present to suggest that she wants to be President of anything but 1/2 of the population. That is how poisonously partisan she is.

You live on a different planet. Hillary's a misandrist, but Trump's a somewhat even more open misogynist. Not only that, but one who campaigned by declaring persona non grata 17% of the American population identifying as Latino. That's a huge deficit to throw into your campaign from the very start. You can gender war it up on either side, but Hillary never did anything that stupid.

But hey it excites you so that's all that matters I guess. You are America. America is all about you.

“Happy #CincoDeMayo! The best taco bowls are made in Trump Tower Grill. I love Hispanics!”

Political has the numbers:"While SurveyMonkey has Trump exceeding Romney’s 2012 performance among Hispanics, other polls conducted over the past few weeks show Trump a bit lower. In four other surveys conducted since mid-May — three live-interview telephone surveys and one internet poll — Trump ranged between 18 percent and 23 percent among Hispanics.Most experts caution that national public polls aren’t great barometers of the Hispanic vote."http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-hispanic-voters-223845

Hillary has always remained a Goldwater Girl at heart, in the sense that she is innately a Republican, despite her various permutations later. She is an avid war hawk and supporter of Wall Street, and she is their loyal vassal. (The Democrats are mostly Republicans now, too.) She is hardly as admirable as Goldwater, however, who stood firmly by his principles, even when the rightward drift of his party into mass lunacy left him standing to their left. Hillary has no real convictions or principles other than aggrandizing her own wealth and power.

"Keep reaching for those straws, Terry. Reach for the sky!"I am not a Trump supporter, R&B. I will not vote for Trump. I enjoy pointing out the stupidity of many of the anti-Trumpers, though. I am especially amused by the neocons who may end up supporting Hillary because she is more hawkish than Trump. Good God, the woman was disastrous at foreign policy.

You live on a different planet. Hillary's a misandrist, but Trump's a somewhat even more open misogynist.

You missed my point, R&B. My "1/2 of the population" referred not to a male/female ratio but rather to the roughly 50/50 split in the electorate in the past few elections (give or take a few points). So to clarify, Hillary is only appealing to core democrats and will only ever appeal to hardcore partisans. Donald Trump has bipartisan crossover appeal and always has. Hillary Clinton lacks crossover appeal unless you count disgruntled Republicans like Jeb and Mitt, Will et al. I expect them all to be actively campaigning for her by the fall. But the public has already rejected those boobs. The EC is a different story.

But I am glad that you recognized Hillary's misandry. I don't believe our hostess has ever blogged about this. I wonder if it's a blind spot?

Jeff said, "The great moral issue of the time was slavery. Compared to that, taxation without representation was a minor injustice. And there is no doubt that when it came to slavery, England was on the side of the angels."

Well I have my doubts. I can't state this with certainty, because there are so many details that I don't know, but I can easily imagine that it might have been that anyone opposed to slavery would have supported the American Revolution.

Take for instance Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence. It gives opposition to slavery as an argument for independence from the British Empire. Certainly the British government's actions are contradictory. On the one hand the government and/or their citizens are practicing slavery on a large scale in the Caribbean and in the United States. It's not like the colonists came up with slavery on their own. This was the law of the empire. (And in the world, it's hardly like the British were unusual in that respect).

And then there are the word games. What is the difference between slave, serf, and indentured servant? What those words actually meant varied between countries and the year. But let's take for example Russia. From wikipedia's abolition of slavery timeline, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline, we find, "1723: Russia abolishes outright slavery but retains serfdom." That sounds like progress, but then look up what it meant to be a serf and you'll discover that arguably all they did was the change the name. The situation and lack of rights of a serf in Russia was absolutely horrific.

And by the way, David above, speaking of one of his ancestors said, "Essentially a serf, because he had to give part of his grip to the Livingston family which owned the land and rented it to him."

I'm sorry but that is not what being a serf means. Renting land and practicing agriculture does not make you a serf. Serfs where legally tied to the land. They are not allowed to leave without permission. Feudal landowners in many senses owned the serfs that went with the land. They have all these claims on what the serfs produced and rights over them which varied between countries and as to what time we are talking about.

But getting back to the colonies, it could be that if you were from that time and place, you would know that supporting American independence implied opposition to slavery. And that it wasn't just words, it was the reality. In practical terms the American revolution and the Constitution marked a huge shift away from slavery not just for the colonies but the whole world.

But to get that you have to immerse yourself in the past and understand it. Hard to do.

I don't understand the quibbling about Democrats and Wall Street. Perhaps we can agree that hillary's a "hawk"/warmongerer regardless of how badly she bungles the missions. But do Republicans actually believe that Wall Street is as natural a constituency for Democrats as it is for Republicans? Or that the poor are as natural a constituency for Republicans as they are for Democrats? However it was that Democrats got into bed (under B Clinton's ministrations) with Wall Street, it is not a natural fit at all. But they accept getting paid off just the same. Republicans are the party of business though, so to say that they can keep the big businesses on Wall Street at bay when it comes to their depredations of the American people and larger American interests sounds a bit far-fetched.

"But do Republicans actually believe that Wall Street is as natural a constituency for Democrats as it is for Republicans?"How much do you know about economics, R&B?The US Chamber of Commerce endorses virtually only Republicans. Its constituency is small to small-medium businesses. the USCC is anti-tax, ant-regulation, and pro-open-borders. Small to medium sized businesses need overall economic growth to thrive (small business creation is down under Obama, BTW). Big corporations don't increase their profits through growth. They've already gotten the biggest marginal gains. Big corporations try to increase profits by increased efficiency (i.e., consolidation, layoffs and outsourcing), and erecting barriers to entry to competitors. The big financial houses like to control regulation. Cleverly written regulations can give them a competitive advantage (I am certain that is what is behind the anti-payday-lending news stories that have become popular in the last year or two). Regulatory capture is already happening with Elizabeth Warren's CFPB. Its employees move back and forth between the CFPB and the banking industry. FYI, The Hill says that historically the banking industry has donated about 50-50 D-R (though slightly more to the GOP). Since 2010, bankers have tilted heavily towards GOP establishment figures like Jeb Bush.http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/258599-clinton-lags-behind-republicans-in-wall-street-donationshttps://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=F

Terry wrote: FYI, The Hill says that historically the banking industry has donated about 50-50 D-R (though slightly more to the GOP). Since 2010, bankers have tilted heavily towards GOP establishment figures like Jeb Bush.

Note that that link is from October 2015 and that each and every candidate -- the ones who took more Wall Street money than Hillary -- have suspended their campaigns. And the article is silent on Donald Trump. Is Trump in bed with Wall Street? I rather doubt it.

You live in your own head, little chicken brain. I can't even make any sense of what you're trying to say. Suffice it to say, I can respond to what another commenter said without you saying "that's not what I meant either." Waaaahhhahhaa. I wasn't talking to you. Grow up.

Note that that link is from October 2015 and that each and every candidate -- the ones who took more Wall Street money than Hillary -- have suspended their campaigns.Trump is horrible at fundraising. He is a total amateur at raising and spending political money. Trump supposedly fired Landowski because Landowski was handing off contracts to supply campaign materials to personal friends, at 4X the going rate. Hillary is quite the expert at managing a campaign. She won't let that happen.

@Cook - you again beclown yourself claiming that Hillary is innately a Republican. At last since college, where she discovered Alinsky, she has been a progressive, with little moral focus except to increase her personal and family wealth and power. Maybe a bit more hawkish than Obama, but little different from the thousands of Dem politicians who see elective office as a way to gain wealth and power, except that she married well.

I think that we may be facing another cusp, a little like the one our ancestors faced in 1776. The basic problem is that we are living in an ever more lawless society. President Obama has made a high art of ignoring Congress and the letter of the law they pass. No money to pay insurance companies for Obamacare losses? No problem - spend it anyway, and then defend in court on the grounds that no one has legal standing to fight it there. People coming together because of Dem part excesses in the two years they had control of Congress and the White House? No problem - IRS can just deny those groups tax exempt status on the grounds that the IRS employees are militant Dems and Tea Party types are mostly Republcans. Administration, of course, tacitly supported this blatantly illegal behavior. So, the presumptive Dem nominee is a world class grifter, who has been getting away with committing felonies since at least she took the $99k in bribes in the form of cattle futures winnings, well over thirty years ago. She has most likely committed thousands of felonies, enough to spend the rest of this lifetime, and maybe the next one or two, behind bars. Yet, it is likely that she will again avoid that fate, and may find herself back in the White House, with the legal power, and shamelessness to pardon herself.

One of the strengths of this country has been its morality. Someone above mentioned the Protestant ethos that drove this country from when settlers first came here through the first half of the 20th Century. One of the things that it helped do was drive the center of the country to do the right thing morally. But more and more have discovered that being honest and moral is a patsy's game. We know that Obama lied to get elected by what he still hasn't released. But as D'Sousa points out in his recent book, Obama is the small time grifter. The Clintons are the world class grifters. They were able to sell American foreign policy for cash for their own pockets, and a lot more for their private family slush fund/foundation. And then cover it up by bypassing federal record keeping and espionage laws. And the odds appear to be that they were brazen enough to get away with it, and get the keys to the big score, the White House, where the sky is the limit. Last time around, Bill was President, and his biggest concern was his pecker. This time it would be Hillary, who was always the Clinton most worried about accumulating money and power.

So, what happens if Hillary wins in November? If the recently enacted CA gun laws are any indication, there will be massive civil disobedience. ARs are flying off the shelves there, and the inventor of the bullet button mag release has already developed a successor that allows quick mag changes under the new law. Gun parts and ammo are likely going to be added to what is already being smuggled into the state. Lots of ammo. And one of the big places I expect to see the civil disobedience (beyond buying guns and ammo like crazy) is in paying taxes. We have a tax system based primarily on honesty and self-reporting. People doing what is right. Except the laws are for the little people. Add to this that a Republcan Congress hasn't given the IRS the money it wants for even holding even on audits, thanks to the agency's adamant refusal to police itself for its blatantly partisan actions (notably its persecution of Tea Party groups). Where is the money going to come from to support the graft and corruption the political elite, and esp the Dem party, use to retain power in this country? We are talking a trillion a year already of new debt. How much more can they borrow, if we join Greece and Italy in avoiding taxes? Clive Bundy and his family were ridiculed for their stand against the BLM. But the next step there was bloody. Dems want to take guns away from anyone on a terrorism watch list, and have repeatedly said that Tea Party groups are more dangerous than Muslim Jihadists and terrorists. Add to this that there are now more civilian federal employees allowed to carry guns than there are U.S.Marines left. We are talking roughly 200,000 armed federal employees. Many heavily armed, with agencies as diverse as the Dept of Education, the EPA, and the USPS creating SWAT teams under Obama. Who are they worried about? Muslim terrorists? Or Tea Pary members and Republicans? Being paranoid, my vote is the latter.

I loathe the government. I am not a loyalist to our current government either.

Those who currently see themselves as the heroic daring rebel character, wanting to burn down our current form of government, aren't rational enough to make any positive changes to something the real heroic rebels fought and died for so many years ago.

Hillary is King George. In power solely due to relationships and not due to any actual competence. Quite corrupt. Openly dismissive about the views of people.

Terry, you might be right, but Trumpism is worst of the two options presented to us. What Trump offers makes me choose status quo this time around. Who knows what will be presented to us at some future date that will be a far better choice to change the status quo.

The only way you'd vote for "rebellion" is if a Republican is in office. That is, LITERALLY, the only thing that'd move you. Tribal to an extreme.

"Clinton writes that she began to have doubts about Goldwater’s politics even before she left high school, when a teacher forced her to play President Johnson during a mock presidential debate in order to "learn about issues from the other side" (page 24). Later, as a junior at Wellesley College, she writes, "I had gone from being a Goldwater Girl to supporting the anti-war campaign of Eugene McCarthy," driving to New Hampshire on weekends to stuff envelopes and walk precincts (pages 32-33). Even so, she also worked as a Washington, D.C., intern for Gerald Ford, who was then the Republican leader of the House, and she attended the 1968 Republican convention to work for New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s unsuccessful effort to get the GOP presidential nomination (pages 34-35).At Yale Law School, however, she completed her transformation from Goldwater Republican to liberal Democrat. At Yale, she met Marian Wright Edelman and helped in her investigations of the Nixon administration. She also met Bill Clinton, and in 1972 joined him in Austin, Texas, where they both worked for George McGovern’s campaign. There, she writes, "I quickly made some of the best friends I’ve ever had" (page 58)."http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/hillary-worked-for-goldwater/

So she hasn't changed her mind in 44 years. Good to know. And the only reason she is called a "Goldwater girl" is because she says she was.

And Hillary's record on honesty is unimpeachable...

She's a damn bigger warmongerer than any Democrat I know.

Democrats started the Civil War.Wilson got us into World War I.FDR World War II.Truman Korea.Johnson really got us into Vietnam.

Where is this whole "peace" Democrat meme coming from? The biggest warmongers were always Democrat, whether the war was just or not.

Hillary has always remained a Goldwater Girl at heart, in the sense that she is innately a Republican, despite her various permutations later. She is an avid war hawk and supporter of Wall Street, and she is their loyal vassal.

Wall Street has been vehemently Democrat for years (OpenSecrets and all), expecting Republican opposition to taxation to protect them from the excesses of their terrible choices (a reason why "tax the rich" is no longer a non-option for conservatives). As I pointed out, Dems start most wars.

But do Republicans actually believe that Wall Street is as natural a constituency for Democrats as it is for Republicans?

100% yes. You know who hates capitalism the most? Successful capitalists. They want THEIR success protected. Democrats do that.

WVFarmLife said: I can't state this with certainty, because there are so many details that I don't know, but I can easily imagine that it might have been that anyone opposed to slavery would have supported the American Revolution.

And he goes on to cite the supposed opposition to slavery of Thomas Jefferson and other slave owners. Meanwhile, the fact remains that slavery within Britain itself was effectively abolished in 1772, and British warships were the only real hindrance to the cross-Atlantic slave trade. It appears from here that only if you think rhetoric matters more than action could you be an abolitionist and still support the American Revolution.

We tend to forget how strong the support for slavery was. It took a massively destructive war nearly 90 years later to finally outlaw it. And it cost Lincoln his life.